The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-05

DEFAULT-ATTORNEY-N ENCE
944 George Washington ct al. VS.. Elisha L.
Reed Reversed Walker, J.-When a party
was confined to his house with PARALYSIS and his
attorney ignorant of the existence of a rule to
answer, fails to plead, and default against his
client is taken, the negligence Of the attorney
was of such character that the law will relieve
the client against the consequences.
APPEAL-sALE-RENTs-R
928. James Renihan ct al vs. Christian q
Fritsche ct al Reversed Walker J-Where
In suit to have receiver appointed the appeal
Is from an introductory order pending such suit
lot other relief an agerieved party is required to
take his appeal from such order within ten DAYS:
but where the sole and only purpose is to secure
the appointment of receiver such party NAV
take an appeal within the time and as provided
ments. Sec 1881 ca Under the statute Of 1881
an owner Is entitled to the possession of real estate
during the year following the sale on execution.
with the right to hold the rents for the same,
and he cannot be dispossessed by a receiver nor
the rents be taken by such receiver.
DECEDENT - PERSONALITY SALE ORDER OF
COURT
1858. Robbins, administrator, vs. Citizens,
Street Railway Company ct al Reversed.
Taylor. J.-Suit by the administrator de bonis
non OF Henry 81. Catherwood against the de-
PENDANT to compel the reinsurance of 3O8 sharas
of the capital stock of the street railway com
pany to the plaintiff to recover the value of
the stock and the dividends which have been
paid thereon. The complaint charges, substan-
TALLY, that Cottonwood died the owner of the
stock, and his widow, as administratrix, applied
to the court for order for the sale of the stock
at private sale. An order was granted, directing
her to sell the stock for the appraised value
taxing good and sufficient security for the pay
ment or the purchase money and directing her to
make q return Of the sale within ninety DAYS
from the date Of the order. After tho order was
made, she attempted, without authority to as
sign, and did deliver, the certificates of stock to
,t0 (.aYlISla oiv;-
without taking any security for the payment of
the purchase money, taking merely a note of
Carlisle for the amount, due ten years after date
no part OF which note, 1t Is averrec, has ever
oeen paid 1t is further averred that she made
no return OF the attempted sale to the court and
no record entry anywhere appears of any return
OF the sale nor proceedings. But she prepared
and swore to return of such proceedings, in
which she stated that she had sold the stock TO
Carlisle for the above amount, which was tina
highest sum she could obtain, and asked
the court to confirm the sale SO reported by her.
out no record. minute or entry Of the fling of
the court Or its clerk. Since this suit was
brought, 1t is averred, the return has been found
among some miscellaneous papers In the clerks
oiilce without any file mark. No confirmation
was ever made of the sale. A certificate
was issued to Carlisle who afterwards ASSIGNED
1t to defendant johnson. The sale and DISPOSE
ton OF personal property of an intestate must be
MADE according to the provisions OF the statutes
D.. n.
n force at the time of the sale, and which be-
came part of the order of sale. provided that
the administrator should make return of such
SAFE within the time prescribed by court not to
extend beyond three months, and bond with an
proved surety. should be taken for the purchasa
money Under this statute and Sec 2 r. s.
1876, p. $40, to make the sale valid it was i'm
alive: a. That there should be an order of court
be made for not less than the appraised yalne
tal That bond, with approved surety or
notes with approved surety or sureties,
waving valuation and appraisement laws should
nave been taken for the purchase money az
Inc credit should not exceed six months is
The return of sale should be made to the court
and the sale confirmed These requisites are
conditions precedent to the validity Of the sale
Inc answer or the company admits that the
sale to Carlisle was on credit of ten years with
out security; that no part Of the purchase money
was paid; that nc return was ever made. and
that there was no confirmation; that it knew
that the stock belonged to Catherwood's estate.
and OF the order OF sale. and had examined it.
but made no inquiry whether sale had actually
been made pursuant to the order, and relied
solely on the order and on the fact that Carlisle
had certificates OF stock Endorsed to him by the |
ADMINISTRATIVE. There being no confirmation.
Carilsle acquired no title or right to the stock
the Endorsement of the certif |
Gates by the ADMINISTRATIVE and their delivery
to him by her. But independent of this alb |
sence OF confirmation, Carlisle had no title for
the sale was not made pursuant to the terms of |
the order The mere fact that Carlisle had the |
stock In his possession Endorsed by the admuis- |
tratrlx, afforded no justification for the cancel
Ing OF the certificates and the issuance Of a new
certlncate by the company. The issuance was a |
clear breach of the company's duty, Carlisle |
could not therefore, by himself or through his |
PLEDGE, the First National Bank, pass his title
TO the defendant, johnson. The action of the |
in permitting him to hold himself
ont TO the world - owner of the stock will not !